US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 208 of 291 · 8,722 total
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges FaceTec's biometric patent in IPR2025-00106. The petitioner argues the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that no discretionary denial applies. The Board’s institution decision remains in effect pending director review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of its IPR was rejected, leaving the Board’s earlier decision intact. The Patent Owner contended the petitioner introduced new arguments and failed to provide claim constructions, justifying the denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no settled expectations justify discretionary denial.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s institution of IPR2025‑00108 against Jumio, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the proceeding duplicates ongoing district‑court litigation.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and highlights time‑bar concerns.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to FaceTec's facial recognition patent.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent is met with a detailed response asserting that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no discretionary denial applies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00101, leaving the original decision unchanged.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00106, leaving the institution of FaceTec's patent intact.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate FaceTec's facial‑authentication patent (U.S. 11,874,910) on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is improper.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that its claimed camera‑optics technique is obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang, Tahk, and Suzuki. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑24.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang and Tahk, and that discretionary denial is improper.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘254 patent, asserting that the Fujiki publication renders the claims obvious under §103 and that no discretionary denial applies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KP Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,499,168, asserting that claims 18‑21 are anticipated or obvious over earlier camera‑carousel and dual‑camera mobile phone references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR petition against CamelBak Products regarding mouthpiece and cap assemblies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that petitioner failed to meet the statutory threshold for institution, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's second IPR petition against Yangtze Memory's 3D memory patent (10,879,254), citing the overlap of asserted prior art knowledge with a previously instituted review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for Jumio Corporation's IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11,157,606). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness over prior art references like Derakhshani and Zhang.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against KP Innovations was denied institution by the PTAB, despite arguments of anticipation and obviousness. The Board cited concerns over inefficient use of time and resources to decline institution, though a dissent argued for prevailing likelihood.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries, finding that parallel district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Mullen’s 2015 patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial standards and ignored a binding Sotera stipulation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung and Google's request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00018, leaving the earlier institution order in place.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 USC 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit access.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.